In Lehman Brothers Special Financing, Inc. v. Ballyrock ABS CDO 2007-1 Limited (In re Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc.), Adv. P. No. 09-01032 (JMP) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. May 12, 2011) [hereinafter “Ballyrock”], the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that a contractual provision that subordinates the priority of a termination payment owing under a credit default swap (CDS) to a debtor in bankruptcy, and which caps the amount of the termination payment, may be an unenforceable ipso facto clause under section 541(c)(1)(B).

You will rely on section 355 for nonrecognition, but here you also must rely on section 332 to make the liquidations tax free, without any liquidation-reincorporation problem. It's very clear that you can get the results you want, but not clear why.

LTR 201123022 describes these facts, in simplified form:

In Geltzer v. Mooney (In re MacMenamin’s Grill, Ltd.), Adv. Pro. No. 09-8266 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. April 21, 2011), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that the safe harbor in section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code does not apply to a small, private leveraged buyout (LBO) transaction that posed no systemic risk to the stability of the financial markets.

The economic crisis presents a real-life test for the Slovenian insolvency legislation, unequalled in its young history. Numerous insolvency proceedings against Slovene companies have revealed several serious flaws of the Insolvency Act and forced the legislator into continuous amendments.

Recent amendments to the Enforcement Procedure and the Interim Protection Act facilitate repayment in enforcement proceedings.

Introduction

Bills of exchange are mostly regulated by the sector specific act of 1946 (based on provisions of three 1930’s Geneva conventions). Provisions of other acts (eg, Obligation Code; Obligacijski zakonik) are used secondarily if the Bill of Exchange Act (Zakon o menici) does not contain applicable provisions.

While in other jurisdictions creditors of an insolvent company may swap their debts into equity, creditors in Austria are still confronted with a “take it or leave it” approach as to the proposed quota payment to unsecured creditors. The recent insolvencies of large Austrian companies show the inadequacy of Austrian insolvency law in that respect.

Financial crisis just arrives

The taxpayer was able to convince the court that the creditors who got the stock in the reorganization were not the prior owners. Because the events occurred in 1992, under a prior version of the continuity of proprietary interest rules, continuity of ownership was broken and a section 338(h)(10) election could be made and the basis in the assets inside the corporation stepped up to fair market value, with no tax liability because the seller was in bankruptcy with large net operating losses (NOLs).

The general legal framework of existing Bulgarian insolvency law covers the core features recognised by the international insolvency community and takes account of EC Regula-tions and Directives. On the other hand, it does not always achieve the proper balance between the need to address the debtor’s financial difficulty as efficiently as possible and the interests of the creditors.

This article highlights some inefficiencies of the existing Bulgarian insolvency regime compared with international best practices.

Scope

The Romanian legal framework on insolvency procedure has been consistently improved following the enactment of Insolvency Law no. 85 (Law 85), which entered into force on 21 July 2006.

Background

Introduction

On October 20 2010 insolvency proceedings were opened against A-TEC Industries AG, the Austrian holding company of industrial group A-TEC. With outstanding debt of around €650 million (including contingent claims), this insolvency is set to be the third-largest insolvency in Austria to date. Claims included around €300 million of bond debt (two convertible bonds and a corporate bond) issued by the company.